Preparations to switch to APK package manager #23706
Comments
|
Below packages that would cause trouble. Please bear in mind that Naughty list:
|
|
isc-dhcp is EOL https://www.isc.org/dhcp/ |
|
Dear package maintainers, There is no need to open individual pull requests for your packages, you are maintaining. That will be really time-consuming for you and for us. We will do it here exactly the same as it was done in the main repo via treewide commit. |
|
I didn't know that the OpenWrt is going to switch to APK. Here is more details on this https://forum.openwrt.org/t/rfc-announcing-apkwrt/120096 |
|
Dear, I've update ksmbd #23750, I'm not maintainer but if I can why don't help? Thanks guys |
|
@aparcar Just a heads up, most of my packages either:
I believe I have fixed most of those, but I may have to submit further PRs if needed. Also, the https-dns-proxy should be fixed with the latest PR. PS. If the PR needs to be made against packages/luci repo for reasons other than APK migration, should I refrain from moving to the new release syntax? |
|
libmad was fixed. |
|
ksmbd-* fixed |
|
I noticed mtd-rw has a bad version too. #23977 fixes. |
|
|
The sslh migration (just as a version update) #24192 |
|
Quick question, is 24x going to use apk? |
No final decision on this. |
If 24.xx is NOT going to use APK by default, would the 24.xx building tools (toolchain, SDK, CI) still prepend |
|
@openwrt/packages-write I kindly ask every maintainer to check the failing package builds here and see if the PKG_VERSION need some adoption: https://buildbot.aparcar.org/faillogs/x86_64/packages/ |
|
@aparcar I built yesterday an APK enabled firmware, and had to remove one package (openssh sftp server) due to the versioning reasons, like expected. |
@aparcar i want to try your docker image and i have this error ^ |
|
node, node-npm: I have sent a pull request. Update: merged |
|
List of still failing packages can be seen from the test/staging apk buildbot faillogs: only a few architectures have been compiled so far, but seems that e.g. ddns-scripts, nginx, ntfs-3g, many perl packages etc. still fail due to versioning reasons. |
|
Does anyone have a clue about perl-file-next or perl related packages? Looking at for example perl-file-next Makefile PKG_VERSION, i don't see anything wrong with it : What would be the fixes then?. |
|
Seems like you attach |
|
guess we need change Line 11 in ca503cc to PKG_VERSION:=$(PKG_VERSION).$(PERL_VERSION2)
|
|
@aparcar @1715173329 |
|
I found that when compiling nginx-ssl I get an error with the following output
How to fix nginx makefile? |
EXTRA_DEPENDS:=nginx-ssl-util (>=1.5-1) By removing the extra version comparison there. (Not sure if actually just "1.5-r1" would be enough there, as old "1.5-1" is not accepted by apk) |
See: openwrt#23706 Signed-off-by: Hirokazu MORIKAWA <[email protected]>
|
I see a lot of package use this: Then |
|
Some examples of solutions, mainly involving extra variables in Makefile to differentiate PKG_VERSION and the name needed for upstream file (and possibly for compilation PKG_BUILD_DIR): |
|
It works, but it would be better if there is a standard for this |
|
If you check the currently failing packages in faillogs, you notice that there is substantial variation to the upstream names. There is no single cure. |
See: openwrt#23706 Signed-off-by: Hirokazu MORIKAWA <[email protected]>
See: #23706 Signed-off-by: Hirokazu MORIKAWA <[email protected]>
See: openwrt#23706 Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <[email protected]>
See: #23706 Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <[email protected]>
|
The list of currently failing packages in the packages feed is already below 10 packages. https://downloads.openwrt.org/snapshots/faillogs/x86_64/packages/
( and also lua-curl-v3 and netdiscover, but there is already a PR for them ) |
|
@hnyman always dreap to have 0 faillogs there... at least for some targets :( |
|
This error looks interesting https://downloads.openwrt.org/snapshots/faillogs/x86_64/telephony/pcapsipdump/compile.txt |
|
Ok we need to escape the description... |
|
Yeah the description handling shout be fixed. |
|
@hnyman I sanitized the package description and also pushed a commit that escape them just to handle anything that is not officially supported. |
See: openwrt#23706 Signed-off-by: Hirokazu MORIKAWA <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit de9f4eb)
See: openwrt#23706 Signed-off-by: Robert Marko <[email protected]> (cherry picked from commit 3d6cfc7)
and others
Hi all, some fellow developers and me worked for some time now on making APK the new package manager for OpenWrt, replacing the unmaintained OPKG fork we've been using for the longest time.
APK is actively developed and used in multiple other distributions, e.g. Alpine Linux 🎉
While there is till some work ahead, I'd like to prepare everyone who maintains a package to verify that the
PKG_VERSIONfollowsSemantic Versioning<major>.<minor>.<fixup>[.<sub1>...]. APK uses a deterministic algorithm to compare versions and does not like random strings, except a valid hash prefixed with a~.If in doubt, please use the Docker container below to verify the used version is valid:
It will print whatever version is not valid, if you get a zero exit code, you're fine.
Please feel free to reach out for assistance and have a look at the core migration of versions.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: